I’ve read Gervais Principle and see it as fully compatible with Immoral Mazes (I forget if I mention this explicitly or not, if not it’s a good idea to fix that in the editing).
Gervais Principle largely studies the interactions between the three groups, as observed in The Office. Sociopaths like David Wallace appear, but they rarely interact much with each other, and while there are some discussions of how they interact (e.g. Power Talk) the book is mostly unconcerned with Sociopath vs. Sociopath.
The managers in Moral Mazes are all (in Gervais terms) sociopaths, with the occasional intentional clueless perhaps (the managers who ‘opt out’ of the competition).
Gervais Principle does not have a suggestion for change, as Rao doesn’t believe in such things, but there is a clear message: If you have to choose, Be A Loser. Immoral Mazes strongly agrees, noting that being a Loser is not obviously a mistake, but that being a Sociopath is definitely a mistake.
Yes, you did mention the Gervais Principle. I found 4 references from Escaping Mazes but the main one seems to be:
The Gervais Principle can be seen as the prequel to Moral Mazes, dealing with life at lower levels of mazes that have to interact with the real world. Mazes need, as several quotes describe, people who keep their heads down and ‘do their job’ with no ambitions for further advancement. Ideally one does this as low on the totem pole as one can stomach and afford, as the life that results is far less odious and taxing.
Some of the other references in that post related to the “loser” concept.
There were also 3 in the Round Up post, one being (Seems no one has taken up the suggestion):
If one wanted to do a full extension of the project, (17) On The Gervais Principle could be anything up to and including its own sequence. As I’ve noted elsewhere, I consider Gervais Principle and Moral Mazes to be fully compatible, and Gervais Principle has a bunch of stuff that expands upon the model.
Gervais Principle does not have a suggestion for change, as Rao doesn’t believe in such things, but there is a clear message: If you have to choose, Be A Loser.
FWIW reading between the lines, I’d say Rao’s belief is “If you have to choose, be a sociopath.”
And when I read it, my clear takeaway was actually to be a clueless—the only one that believed in organizations that could make a difference, and lived that value.
Of course, one of the problem’s with Rao’s account that I later realized(that I think Zvi’s sequence shares to some degree) is that it doesn’t distinguish between Kegan 4.5 Sociopaths, and Kegan 5 leaders. This creates the impossible choice between having freedom as a loser, meaning as a clueless, or influence as as a sociopath, pick one.
Similarly, Zvi’s sequence gives the choice of truth as a simulacra 1, belonging as Simulacra 2, and influence as Simulacra 4.
Neither framing admits that it’s possible to get to a stage of leadership in which you can fluidly cycle between variations of the 3 modes.
I’ve read Gervais Principle and see it as fully compatible with Immoral Mazes (I forget if I mention this explicitly or not, if not it’s a good idea to fix that in the editing).
Gervais Principle largely studies the interactions between the three groups, as observed in The Office. Sociopaths like David Wallace appear, but they rarely interact much with each other, and while there are some discussions of how they interact (e.g. Power Talk) the book is mostly unconcerned with Sociopath vs. Sociopath.
The managers in Moral Mazes are all (in Gervais terms) sociopaths, with the occasional intentional clueless perhaps (the managers who ‘opt out’ of the competition).
Gervais Principle does not have a suggestion for change, as Rao doesn’t believe in such things, but there is a clear message: If you have to choose, Be A Loser. Immoral Mazes strongly agrees, noting that being a Loser is not obviously a mistake, but that being a Sociopath is definitely a mistake.
Yes, you did mention the Gervais Principle. I found 4 references from Escaping Mazes but the main one seems to be:
Some of the other references in that post related to the “loser” concept.
There were also 3 in the Round Up post, one being (Seems no one has taken up the suggestion):
FWIW reading between the lines, I’d say Rao’s belief is “If you have to choose, be a sociopath.”
I think that’s also what many readers concluded.
And when I read it, my clear takeaway was actually to be a clueless—the only one that believed in organizations that could make a difference, and lived that value.
Of course, one of the problem’s with Rao’s account that I later realized(that I think Zvi’s sequence shares to some degree) is that it doesn’t distinguish between Kegan 4.5 Sociopaths, and Kegan 5 leaders. This creates the impossible choice between having freedom as a loser, meaning as a clueless, or influence as as a sociopath, pick one.
Similarly, Zvi’s sequence gives the choice of truth as a simulacra 1, belonging as Simulacra 2, and influence as Simulacra 4.
Neither framing admits that it’s possible to get to a stage of leadership in which you can fluidly cycle between variations of the 3 modes.
BTW this is bolstered by Rao’s other work, like his longstanding newsletter called “Be Slightly Evil”.
I think you probably mention Gervais Principle briefly at some point?